Should BiblePay sanctuaries (masternodes) be allowed to host nodes on a single IP?

Brief history of masternodes

Before DASH (Digital Cash), there was DarkCoin. DarkCoin was the name of the coin before the rebrand. DarkCoin allowed masternodes on the same IP using different ports. As the demands on masternodes continued to grow, placing a node on a single Virtual Private Server (VPS) or dedicated server made more sense than loading multiple masternodes on to a single server.

Masternode hosting services

Masternode (MN) hosting services like Apollon can offer MN hosting for free cheaper by loading multiple masternodes (wallet daemons) on to a single IP. They don’t have to pay monthly fees to extra IPv4 and they just need one beefy dedicated server or host multiple nodes on the same server. The business expense for masternode hosting services are significantly reduced and we hope they pass the savings on to customers. The shared hosting cost ($1/mo) is likely enough for someone to outsource hosting of 4.55M BBP sanctuary and let it be managed by Apollon.
The downside to shared hosting is it centralizes the service and creates a single point of failure. A distributed denial of service (DDos) attack, a network routing failure, or hardware catastrophe all mean a group of masternodes can become unavailable. That’s part of the risk of consolidating resources and somewhat anti-thethical to the infrastructure of distributed systems like cryptocurrency. If you want a robust distributed network with redundancy, etc — I’d caution against a centralized setup. If in the future, masternodes play a bigger role in securing the network or providing services, having a decentralized CDN would crypto investors in a more reliable fashion.

Proposal to remove BiblePay sanctuary port restriction

So this idea is spearheaded by Apollon and I also have heard of this idea from TheSnat before.

The idea is to remove the port restriction on sactuaries, and allow the sanc to be hosted from any port number.

Technically, we know this will work because XAP and BlockLogic (BLTG) are doing it already.

(The port restriction is this:  Dash must run on port 9999 only and if a user hosts from other than 9999, the Masternode will be rejected from the network.  For BiblePay they must run on port 40000).

Dash put the port restriction in to be more corporate friendly for Network Admins – IE – they wanted network admins to know that if port 9999 is to be open, its specifically for Dash traffic.

Initially I was slightly against the idea, when I imagined we would have one sanc per user, I figured each of us could afford the $5 hosting fee per month.

However, as we evolved I have seen another side to this situation:  During downward price spirals some of our users who are cost concious would like to run more than one sanc on a hosted VPS.  From my perspective, I changed my mind to neutral when I experienced a very bad service level with one of my last sanc hosts (not vultr), and I had to hurry and switch to Apollon (thank God they were available at the time).  What Im alluding to is, if removing the port restriction would have given me for example a path to create more instances per vultr node for example, it might have been a life saver.  (I dont mean financially for me, I mean for the sake of the GSC contracts being voted on by my nodes).

In light of this I’ve become neutral.  I obviously want high performance per node.

Please provide any opinions on this idea, if this will be a terrible move for some reason.

As far as Apollons perspective, they are in business to make money.  I realize our partners need to be healthy and make a profit, and if we lose our partners, we lose our ability to host sancs.  Lets think of this from all angles.

Possible Positive reason:
If less BBP is spent on hosting less is liquidated on the exchange for hosting fees to be paid

Possible Negative reason:
Will we look weak and fragile if we allow this?

0 0 vote
Article Rating
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments